MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These review petitions seek a review of a judgment and order which has been pronounced on 9th September, 2014, in two Central Excise Appeals and three Writ Petitions which raise common questions of fact and law.

(2.) Mr. Sridharan, learned senior counsel appearing in support of these review petitions submits that the petitioners are not in any manner seeking a re-hearing of the appeals and the writ petitions in the garb of a review. They are intending to invite this Court's attention to a patent error and appearing on the face of the record that is leading to an inconsistency in the conclusions recorded by this Court. Mr. Sridharan submits that the essential ground on which review is sought is that the respondent filed an appeal being Central Excise Appeal No. 39 of 2013 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 25th June, 2014, dismissed the Central Excise Appeal No. 39 of 2013. This Court held that the Tribunal's order and view taken cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in the very proceedings and between same parties, the same order of the Appellate Tribunal has been upheld by this Court by relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Repro India Limited vs. Union of India, 2009 235 ELT 614 and another judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. Sharp Menthol India Limited, 2011 270 ELT 212. Thus, this Court held that the exempted goods (tractors) can be exported under Bond/Undertaking-1 in terms of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and that by virtue of Rule 6(6)(v) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the provisions of Rule 6(1) and 6(3) are not applicable in respect of excisable goods cleared with payment of duty for export under bond. However, in the judgment/order under review, this Court has held that Rule 6(6)(v) will not assist the review petitioners. Thus, this Court has overlooked the judgment passed in these very proceedings.

(3.) Mr. Sridharan submits that for pointing out this inconsistency, nothing more except some paragraphs of the judgment under review and the judgment referred above have to be noted.